Content area
Background
English second language (ESL) and English foreign language (EFL) vocabulary learning play a vital role in success in higher education. However, traditional vocabulary learning methods can be time-consuming, demotivating, and ineffective. Recent technological developments offer engaging and immersive methods for vocabulary learning, such as virtual reality (VR).
Objectives
This systematic review synthesizes research on VR in ESL/EFL vocabulary learning within higher education, focusing on demographic, software, and platform trends. It examines how VR has been adopted over the past decade and explores the benefits and challenges experienced by university students using VR for vocabulary learning.
Methods
A systematic search was conducted using Google Scholar, EBSCO, and Web of Science databases, focusing on quantitative and qualitative studies published from 2013 to 2023. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to ensure a rigorous review process.
Results
The review examined 23 studies involving 1,500 participants, with 78.3% being undergraduates, who used VR platforms such as Google Expeditions, EduVenture, and Unity through role-playing, interactive scenarios, and content creation. Despite challenges like technical issues and physical discomfort, the studies highlighted benefits including enhanced vocabulary retention, learner engagement, motivation, confidence, and support for autonomous, personalized learning.
Conclusions
This systematic review highlights the potential of VR in enhancing ESL/EFL vocabulary learning in higher education. Despite challenges like technical issues and costs, VR offers engaging and effective learning experiences. Future research should address these challenges and explore VR's long-term effects on language learning outcomes. Additionally, professional development (PD) should prioritize accessibility and inclusivity, ensuring VR tools are adaptable to diverse learner needs. By aligning PD with both computational thinking and English language acquisition goals, institutions can foster more effective and sustainable integration of VR in language education.
Introduction
Vocabulary acquisition in English language education stands as a foundational pillar for developing literacy and academic proficiency. For English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and English as a Second Language (ESL) learners, a limited vocabulary often hinders their ability to comprehend academic texts, engage in classroom discourse, and succeed in higher education settings (Zeng et al., 2025). This challenge is particularly pronounced at the university level, where students are expected to navigate complex subject matter in English, making vocabulary learning not just a linguistic concern but a critical academic necessity (Zeng et al., 2025).
In response to these challenges, educational technology has increasingly been leveraged to support vocabulary development. Among the emerging tools, virtual reality (VR) has gained attention for its potential to create immersive, interactive, and context-rich learning environments. Unlike traditional methods, VR offers learners the opportunity to engage with language in simulated real-world scenarios, enhancing both retention and practical usage (Wu et al., 2023; Zheng et al., 2022). As higher education institutions explore innovative pedagogies, VR presents a promising avenue for transforming vocabulary instruction into a more engaging and effective experience.
Over the past decade, significant advancements in VR hardware, such as the HTC Vive and Oculus Rift, and educational software have expanded the possibilities for language learning. While many applications have demonstrated positive outcomes, including increased learner motivation and improved vocabulary retention, others have highlighted persistent challenges related to accessibility, usability, and pedagogical integration.
This systematic review is motivated by the need to critically examine how VR has been adopted in vocabulary learning for university-level ESL/EFL students since 2013. By synthesizing existing research, we aim to identify key trends, evaluate the effectiveness of VR-based vocabulary instruction, and explore the interactive features that contribute to learner engagement. Furthermore, we aim to understand the barriers that educators and learners encounter when implementing VR technologies, including technical limitations, physical constraints, and instructional design issues.
A demographic analysis of the reviewed studies will also shed light on the diversity of learner populations and the generalizability of findings across different educational contexts. Through this comprehensive review, we aim to provide insights into the evolving role of VR in language education and its potential to support vocabulary learning in higher education.
In line with the above, we have formulated the following research questions:
What are the demographic, software, and platform trends of VR used in vocabulary learning in EFL/ESL settings within HE over the last decade?
How has VR been adopted for vocabulary learning for ESL/EFL learners in the past decade?
How do the research design and data collection methods used in the reviewed studies reflect the community of the research practice of VR in ESL/EFL?
What is the influence of VR on vocabulary learning experienced by ESL/EFL students?
Literature review
Virtual Reality
Virtual reality (VR) involves computer-generated simulations that immerse users in 3D environments (Bailenson, 2018). These simulations are typically accessed through headsets that provide visual and auditory stimuli, often combined with controllers for interaction (Jerald, 2016). This technology makes users feel like they are really inside a virtual environment, where they can look around and interact with objects (Gonzalez-Franco & Lanier, 2017). As VR technology continues to evolve, its potential for transformative experiences constantly expands (Lee et al., 2022). VR's capabilities extend beyond gaming, finding applications in diverse fields such as education, healthcare, and training (Radianti et al., 2020).
Freina and Ott (2015) explained that virtual reality started as early as the 1960s and comes in two forms, immersive and non-immersive. Immersive VR employs equipment like head-mounted displays (HMDs) or VR goggles using cardboard, which create an artificial environment using sounds, 3D images, and other stimuli to make users experience a virtual world. Whereas non-immersive VR utilizes computers to generate imaginary or real locations.
Rationale for using virtual reality in ESL/EFL teaching
The interactive nature of VR experiences promotes student engagement, increasing motivation and providing deeper learning outcomes (Lin & Wang, 2021). Interactions can occur with objects or other people within the virtually immersive environment. This kind of interaction typically occurs with reduced stress and a sense of obligation, allowing students to feel comfortable making mistakes and repeating tasks. Moreover, VR allows for situated learning, where students practice using language within realistic scenarios that mirror situations they may encounter outside the classroom (Godwin-Jones, 2016). This contextualization of language learning can make vocabulary and grammar more meaningful and memorable (Monteiro & Ribeiro, 2020). Lastly, VR's adaptability enables personalized learning experiences catering to diverse needs and learning styles (Alizadeh, 2019).
Utilization and benefits of virtual reality in ESL/EFL vocabulary teaching in higher education
VR offers unparalleled opportunities to visualize abstract concepts, facilitating the development of complex vocabulary often encountered in higher education (HE) settings (Wu et al., 2023). Furthermore, VR simulations of professional environments expose students to specialized terminology essential for their career development (Pellas et al., 2021). VR can be integrated into content-based instruction, aiding students in learning subject-specific vocabulary relevant to disciplines like science or business (Chen et al., 2021). Additionally, VR-based vocabulary activities can be tailored for independent study, promoting autonomy and catering to the needs of mature students in HE (Alwafi et al., 2022). VR's customizability allows instructors to create vocabulary exercises aligning with specific goals and curricula of higher-level EFL courses (Ebadi & Ebadijalal, 2022).
Investigating the current literature, virtual reality (VR) has shown considerable promise in enhancing vocabulary acquisition among ESL/EFL learners in higher education. Immersive VR environments offer learners rich, contextually meaningful experiences that facilitate deeper cognitive processing and enhance long-term retention of vocabulary (Monteiro & Ribeiro, 2020). These environments simulate real-life scenarios, allowing learners to interact with objects and characters, which promotes active engagement and practical language use (Akyıldız, 2025). Studies have demonstrated that VR significantly improves learner motivation, cognitive efficiency, and vocabulary recall compared to traditional methods (Chen, 2016a, 2016b; Madini & Alshaikhi, 2017). The interactive nature of VR also reduces learner anxiety and fosters a safe space for experimentation and repetition, which is particularly beneficial for language learners (Wu et al., 2023). Furthermore, meta-analytical findings confirm that VR-assisted language learning yields medium to strong effect sizes for both linguistic and affective gains, reinforcing its value as a pedagogical tool (Wang et al., 2021). These benefits collectively highlight VR's potential to transform vocabulary instruction in higher education by making learning more engaging, personalized, and effective.
Negative impact of virtual reality In ESL/EFL vocabulary teaching in higher education
Even though implementing VR for ESL/EFL vocabulary teaching in higher education has shown positive outcomes, several challenges persist. The cost of VR hardware and software development can be significant, posing a barrier for institutions with limited budgets (Alfadil, 2020a, 2020b). Additionally, many educators may lack the expertise required to effectively design and integrate VR-based vocabulary activities into their curriculum (Alwafi et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2021). VR experiences can sometimes induce motion sickness or disorientation in users, potentially hindering learning for some students (Feng & Ng, 2023; Hoang et al., 2023a, 2023b; Monteiro & Ribeiro, 2020; Wu et al., 2023). It's also important to consider accessibility, as VR experiences need to be designed inclusively to accommodate students with disabilities (Parmaxi & Demetriou, 2020). The novelty of VR can sometimes distract learners from the primary focus on vocabulary learning, especially if the technology itself becomes the central point of interest (Soleimani et al., 2019). Moreover, designing VR scenarios that convincingly replicate complex real-world language interactions relevant to HE contexts poses its own technical difficulties (Alfadil, 2020a, 2020b). Lastly, further research is needed to determine the long-term effects of VR on vocabulary retention and its optimal integration within ESL/EFL instruction (Alwafi et al., 2022).
Rationale for systematic review and the related studies
Despite growing interest in the use of virtual reality (VR) in language education, a comprehensive synthesis focused specifically on vocabulary learning within ESL/EFL higher education contexts remains lacking. Existing studies and reviews have explored VR's potential to enhance engagement, contextualize learning, and support personalized instruction (Alizadeh, 2019; Godwin-Jones, 2016; Radianti et al., 2020; Haoming & Wei, 2024; Wu et al., 2023). However, these findings are either dispersed across varied platforms, learner populations, and instructional approaches, or they lack a focused examination that integrates the specific dimensions addressed by our research questions (see Table 1).
Table 1. Systematic reviews on VR in education
Author | Number of Articles and Timespan | Focus |
|---|---|---|
Radianti et al. (2020) | 38 from 2016 to 2018 | Learning contents, VR design, and learning theories in HE |
Pataquiva and Klimova (2022) | 7 from 2017 to 2021 | Impact of VR technologies on language skills and student proficiency |
Hua and Wang (2023) | 38 from 2018 to 2022 | VR benefits and drawbacks for practitioners and researchers |
Zheng et al. (2022) | 69 from 2010 to 2020 | Trends and challenges in VR-supported language education |
Haoming and Wei (2024) | 23 From 2019 to 2023 | Vocabulary learning within the context of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) gamification |
Qiu et al. (2023) | 150 From 2008 to 2019 | Trends in VR/AR technology-supporting language learning |
Radianti et al. (2020) included one review (Chen, 2016a, 2016b) on language content learning in HE. Although the review covered VR studies during 2016–2018, locating only one study dedicated to language learning underscores a significant gap in the literature within the HE context. Therefore, the current systematic review aims to address this by encompassing a broader range of VR studies related specifically to vocabulary learning in HE, from 2013 to 2023.
Pataquiva and Klimova's (2022) review of VR in second language acquisition offered a limited number of studies addressing the impact of VR and AR technology on language learning. Only two studies specifically looked at vocabulary learning through VR, and just one of these was conducted in a HE setting. Consequently, the current review aims to cover this gap and encompass a broader range of empirical studies that focus on the use of VR in HE and its effect on vocabulary acquisition.
Hua and Wang's (2023) review of VR-assisted language learning from 2018–2022 explored the expanded scope of VR-assisted language learning (VRALL), identifying its cognitive and affective benefits and drawbacks, and offering actionable insights. Three of the 38 articles reviewed addressed the impact of VR on vocabulary learning within HE, and these studies (Bacca-Acosta et al., 2022; Chen & Hsu, 2020; Ebadi & Ebadijalal, 2022) are included in the current review. Additionally, 16 studies concentrated on VR's role in language learning in HE. Still, they focused on other areas such as writing, reading, English for Specific Purposes (ESP), intercultural aspects, or languages other than English. This highlights two significant gaps: a lack of studies on VR usage for vocabulary learning in HE and a lack of systematic reviews on this topic. These gaps motivated us to further investigate the existing literature and underscore the need for a more comprehensive systematic review.
Zheng et al. (2022) found 69 studies on VR in language education from 2010 to 2020. This review encompassed papers that examined the benefits of VR in various areas, including listening, speaking, writing, translation/interpreting, vocabulary retention, and overall language proficiency. Notably, only 8 of these studies focused on the advantages of VR for vocabulary learning, and only 3 pertained to HE. This gap in VR affordances for vocabulary learning within HE furthers the need for our systematic review.
Haoming and Wei's (2024) review focused on vocabulary learning within the context of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) gamification. While their review effectively addressed the benefits of VR technologies for vocabulary learning and the associated challenges—similar to this review—it fell short of offering detailed insights into hardware and software used in VR, as well as the platforms commonly employed for vocabulary instruction. Additionally, Haoming and Wei's (2024) review covered studies from 2019 to 2023 but included only seven studies relevant to HE. Therefore, our systematic review aims to fill this gap by examining the developments in vocabulary learning through VR technologies in HE over the past decade.
Much like the current review, Qiu et al. (2023) highlighted trends in VR technology for language learning. They examined studies published from 2008 to 2019 and discovered over 77 studies focused on VR in language education in HE. However, only 13 of these studies specifically addressed VR's role in vocabulary learning. Notably, despite being published in 2023, Qiu et al.'s (2023) review only included research from 2008 to 2019. For this purpose, this review aims to include studies within the context of implementing VR technologies into vocabulary learning in HE.
Although numerous systematic reviews have highlighted the growing use of VR in language learning within higher education (Dhimolea et al., 2022; Huang et al., 2021; Parmaxi, 2023; Peixoto et al., 2021; Pinto et al., 2021), few have focused explicitly on vocabulary acquisition among ESL/EFL university students. Moreover, existing reviews often overlook the broader landscape of which VR applications and software platforms are being used to support vocabulary learning. This lack of targeted analysis limits our understanding of how VR is being implemented in practice, and which tools are most effective. By addressing these gaps, the present review offers a more focused and comprehensive synthesis—examining not only the pedagogical impact of VR on vocabulary learning but also the demographic trends, methodological aspects, technological choices, as well as benefits and challenges that shape its use in higher education contexts.
Methodology
This review was guided by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRIMSA), a well-recognized tool in educational research. These guidelines were strictly adhered to, ensuring a structured and unbiased approach (Fig. 1), which provided a rigorous methodology for identifying and evaluating relevant empirical studies (Page et al., 2021; Mishra & Mishra, 2023). Focus was placed on teaching and learning vocabulary in ESL/EFL in HE from 2013 onward to identify the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Appropriate research questions were formulated, aligning keywords and results of a comprehensive search, which were filtered based on the predefined criteria. Subsequently, the selected studies underwent analysis, and their findings were synthesized.
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 1
PRISMA Flow Diagram of the studies gathered, screened, and included in this systematic review
The population of articles were identified by searching three databases—Google Scholar, EBSCO, and Web of Science—on January 17, 2024. The search utilized specific terms: "university student*" OR "College student*" OR English OR "language learner*" AND ESL OR EFL AND "Virtual realit*" OR "VR" AND "Vocabulary retention" OR learning OR teaching OR memorization OR "lexical retention." Articles included were those published from 2013 onward.
The following inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied:
The sample was extracted from articles identified through the databases, screened using the Rayyan platform and verified via the Research Rabbit platform. Where the inclusion/exclusion of specific articles was unclear, a discussion between the two primary researchers was conducted. If an agreement was not achieved, an external expert was consulted. Additionally, this expert examined a sample of included and excluded articles to bolster reliability.
Initially, 145 articles were collected employing the Rayyan platform, with 81 duplicate studies being identified and removed. The subsequent screening process involved reviewing article abstracts, resulting in the exclusion of 112 articles based on incorrect study focus, incorrect publication type, and incorrect population. This reduced the sample to 33 articles.
We then manually added 31 articles using Research Rabbit linked to the initial database compiled. The remaining articles were not identified on Research Rabbit due to reasons such as publication in non-indexed journals or irrelevant study designs. Consequently, these two articles were excluded.
Further examination of the 31 articles revealed additional potentially relevant studies published in 2013. This search contained 50 articles that were not included in the original Rayyan screening. Each of these articles was reviewed for relevance using the same criteria. Following this secondary review, ten additional relevant articles were included, bringing the total to 41.
During the screening and review, 18 articles were excluded. More precisely, one study was excluded because it was written in languages other than English (Jin, 2021), others were conceptual papers lacking empirical data, or had publication dates beyond the cutoff year of 2023 (Shi et al., 2024; Kaplan-Rakowski & Gruber, 2022; Eisenlauer & Sosa, 2022). Additionally, 13 studies were excluded due to unsuitable populations, such as elementary or high school students, teachers, or native speakers, which did not align with the target sample (Albayrak et al., 2023; Alfadil, 2020a, 2020b; Al-Gamdi, 2019; Chen & Yuan, 2025; Fuhrman et al., 2021; Lai & Chen, 2023; Lee & Park, 2020; Legault et al., 2019; Nicolaidou et al., 2023; Tai et al., 2022; Tseng et al., 2020a, 2020b; Vázquez et al., 2018; Xie et al., 2021). Furthermore, duplicated works and studies with incompatible formats or durations were removed (Wilang & Soermphongsuwat, 2018). These exclusions ensured that the final selection of studies was methodologically consistent and relevant to the research focus (Table 2).
Table 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for article selection
Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria |
|---|---|
Virtual reality studies | Article published before 2013 |
Empirical studies | Articles that do not include students |
Higher Education | Conceptual studies |
University Students | Articles that are not about the English language learning |
English as a second/foreign language teaching and learning | Studies about augmented reality (AR) |
Vocabulary | Studies regarding teachers' perceptions of VR |
Peer-reviewed articles | Non-peer-reviewed articles |
Studies from 2013 onward | Theses Non-indexed journal |
Studies that include pre-university students | |
Duplicated manuscripts |
We acknowledge that this systematic review exhibits language bias. Only studies published in languages mastered by the research team at an academic level (Arabic and English) were included, thereby potentially overlooking relevant studies in other languages.
Results and discussion
Demographics trends
This section presents findings relevant to the first research question, which focuses on demographic trends in VR studies of vocabulary learning among ESL/EFL university students. Figure 2 below shows the frequency of published studies from 2013 to 2023:
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 2
The frequency of studies over the past decade
Age, number, and level of participants:
The studies reviewed involved learners with an average age of 20 years. Table 3 below illustrates the age ranges, number of participants, and learners’ level of study:
Table 3. Age range of participants
# | Authors and Year | Age (range) | Number of participants | Level of study |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Chen (2014) | 19 | 120 | Undergraduate |
2 | Hassani et al. (2016) | 25 | 10 | Graduate |
3 | Chen (2016a, 2016b) | 19 | 448 | Undergraduate |
4 | Chen (2016a, 2016b) | 21–55 | 9 | Graduate & Mid-career |
5 | Madini and Alshaikhi (2017) | 23–35 | 20 | Postgraduates |
6 | Yildirim et al. (2019) | 18–20 | 18 | Undergraduate |
7 | Wilang (2019) | NS | 11 | Undergraduate |
8 | Monteiro and Ribeiro (2020) | NS | 25 | Undergraduate & Private |
9 | Chen (2020) | 18–19 | 117 | Undergraduate |
10 | Chen and Hsu (2020) | 18–20 | 274 | Undergraduate |
11 | York et al. (2021) | 18–24 | 30 | Undergraduate |
12 | Chen et al. (2021) | 18–20 | 84 | Undergraduate |
13 | Wang et al. (2021) | 19 | 98 | Undergraduate |
14 | Ebadi and Ebadijalal (2022) | 24–32 | 20 | HE Language center |
15 | Bacca-Acosta et al. (2022) | 18–26 | 41 | Undergraduate |
16 | Yeh et al. (2022) | NS | 60 | Undergraduate |
17 | Li et al. (2022) | NS | 36 | Undergraduate |
18 | Hoang et al. (2023a) | NS | 23 | Undergraduate |
19 | Hoang et al. (2023b) | NS | 24 | Undergraduate |
20 | Wu et al. (2023) | 19–20 | 10 | Undergraduate |
21 | Liu et al. (2023) | 20 | 63 | Undergraduate |
22 | Bacca-Acosta et al. (2023) | 16–26 | 80 | Undergraduate |
23 | Feng and Ng (2023) | 18 | 144 | Undergraduate |
Figure 3 of the age density in the graph below shows the participants’ age distributions, highlighting age-related trends and offering insight into which demographics engage most with VR in HE settings. The x-axis exhibits age groups, and the y-axis indicates density. Ages span from 16 to 60 years, although we noted a higher concentration of VR learners between 20 and 30 years. The Overlapping area in the graph reveals shared usage frequencies among different age groups. Findings from these studies can inform the development of VR applications tailored to different age groups. While the graph offers valuable insights into age-related trends, further research is necessary to understand the underlying reasons behind these patterns.
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 3
Density and Overlap of Age Groups in EFL/ESL VR Studies
As illustrated in Fig. 4 below, demographic results indicate a substantial predominance of undergraduate participants, representing 78.3% of the total sample, raising important considerations for the generalizability of the findings. Undergraduates, being the majority demographic, might skew the results toward learning needs, preferences, and challenges typical of this group, which may not fully represent those of graduate or postgraduate learners.
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 4
Participants’ level of study
The lower percentages of graduate (4.3%), postgraduate (4.3%), and language center learners (4.3%) suggest that these groups are underrepresented in the reviewed studies. This imbalance could stem from the availability and recruitment of participants or the focus of research being more heavily weighted toward undergraduate education.
The presence of 8.7% mixed-level participants suggests some studies took a more inclusive approach, potentially offering broader insight into diverse learner experiences. However, this proportion still limits the comprehensive understanding of how EFL/ESL learning impacts students across academic levels.
Educational background
As Table 4 below shows, the educational backgrounds of participants in the reviewed literature exhibit a significant range, encompassing majors from science and technology to engineering, as well as English language teaching. There appears to be a focus on disciplines integrating technology with subject learning, such as electrical and computer science, likely due to the technological nature of VR (Al-Ansi et al., 2023). There is also representation from fields that might not directly connect with technology, such as counseling, guidance, geography, and nursing, suggesting a varied interest in employing VR in HE settings. A substantial number of studies do not specify participants’ majors, which indicates a general application of VR in language learning across different disciplines. This multidisciplinary approach emphasizes VR’s versatility for enhancing language proficiency, irrespective of the fields of study.
Table 4. Educational background of participants in VR studies
# | Authors and Year | Participants’ Major |
|---|---|---|
1 | Chen (2014) | Science and Technology |
2 | Hassani et al. (2016) | Engineering |
3 | Chen (2016a, 2016b) | Science and Technology |
4 | Chen (2016a, 2016b) | Not Specified |
5 | Madini and Alshaikhi (2017) | Counseling and Guidance |
6 | Yildirim et al. (2019) | English Language Teaching |
7 | Wilang (2019) | Not Specified |
8 | Monteiro and Ribeiro (2020) | Not Specified |
9 | Chen (2020) | Electrical and Technology |
10 | Chen and Hsu (2020) | Technology |
11 | York et al. (2021) | Computer Science |
12 | Chen et al. (2021) | Electric and Mechanical Engineering |
13 | Wang and et al., (2021) | Not Specified |
14 | Ebadi and Ebadijalal (2022) | Statistics, Mathematics, Electronic Engineering, and Computer Engineering |
15 | Bacca-Acosta et al. (2022) | Not Specified |
16 | Yeh et al. (2022) | English as a Foreign Language |
17 | Li et al. (2022) | Geography |
18 | Hoang et al. (2023a) | Not Specified |
19 | Hoang et al. (2023b) | Not Specified |
20 | Wu et al. (2023) | Nursing |
21 | Liu et al. (2023) | Not Specified |
22 | Bacca-Acosta et al. (2023) | Not Specified |
23 | Feng and Ng (2023) | Not Specified |
As noted in Table 4 above, more than half of the studies reveal the participants’ majors; nevertheless, some researchers emphasized language acquisition results and technology utilization rather than focusing on particular academic disciplines. J. Chen (2016a, 2016b) does not explicitly mention students’ majors, which might result from its focus on exploring the intersection of English language learners internationally, task-based instruction, and 3D multi-user virtual learning in Second Life.
In Wilang’s (2019) study, identifying the students' majors was not feasible since the sample consisted of freshmen enrolled in a foundational English course, with their majors likely not yet determined. Participants were instructed to listen to the speaker and follow directions in the 360 VR stimulus video, which involved identifying named items within the virtual environment. Monteiro and Ribeiro (2020) also did not mention the participants' majors. This omission may be attributed to the study’s focus on participants from various language proficiency levels; consequently, participants’ majors were not a focus. While other studies did not explicitly state reasons for omitting participants’ majors, it is possible that researchers prioritized language learning outcomes and technology use over specific majors (e.g. Wang et al., 2021; Bacca-Acosta et al., 2022; Hoang et al., 2023a, 2023b; Hoang et al., 2023a, 2023b; Liu et al., 2023; Bacca-Acosta et al., 2023; Feng & Ng, 2023).
Virtual reality usage in ESL/EFL
This section presents findings related to the second research question, which examines the uses and adaptation of VR platforms, as well as the associated technology utilized for vocabulary learning among ESL/EFL university students since 2013.
Virtual reality platforms
In the analysis of technological progression within VR platforms demonstrated in Table 5 below, longitudinal data exhibits notable advancements. Initial studies spanning 2014 to 2016 indicate the utilization of 2D and 3D VR made-from-scratch models with the incorporation of voice recognition technologies like Dragon Naturally Speaking and Microsoft Speech SDK, alongside VIRTLANTIS and Unity—all operated on conventional computer setups rather than immersive headsets (Chen, 2014; Hassani et al., 2016; Y. Chen, 2016a, 2016b; J. Chen, 2016a, 2016b).
Table 5. VR platforms used in the studies
# | Authors | Platform/s | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | Chen (2014) | VR Courseware (Unity, MAYA & Photoshop) | Utilized various VR courseware like MAYA, Unity, and Photoshop to create VR experiences following a seven-step process: Idea, Storyboard, Necessity, Content, Technicality, Testing, and Prototype |
2 | Hassani et al. (2016) | An Intelligent Virtual Environment (IVE) in language learning context Dragon Naturally Speaking Microsoft Speech SDK | IVE combined Dragon Naturally Speaking (speech recognition engine) and Microsoft Speech SDK (text-to-speech engine) to create interactive, virtual spaces |
3 | Chen (2016a, 2016b) | Not specified | – |
4 | Chen (2016a, 2016b) | VIRTLANTIS | A virtual island designed for language learners to practice their target languages. Users, represented by avatars, utilize various 3D resources |
5 | Madini and Alshaikhi (2017) | 360-degreeYouTube videos | Utilized by placing smartphones into the goggles to access 360-degree curriculum-related videos on YouTube, |
6 | Yildirim et al. (2019) | 3-D videos from YouTube | Participants used VR Goggles, seated on 360° rotating chairs, by placing a smartphone into the goggles |
7 | Wilang (2019) | 360-degree videos | Participants watched the 360 VR stimulus videos available on YouTube by placing a smartphone into a VR headset |
8 | Monteiro and Ribeiro (2020) | Google Expeditions and Poly | The Google Expedition application, created in 2015, offers over 500 free downloadable virtual field trip experiences with text-based scripts for teachers to guide their students Google Poly is designed for creating 3D objects and scenes specifically for VR and AR devices |
9 | Chen (2020) | Unity Software | Unity—software that allows users to develop high-quality 3D and 2D games and deploy them on multiple platforms |
10 | Chen and Hsu (2020) | Unity Software | See 9 |
11 | York et al. (2021) | Unity Software | See 9 |
12 | Chen et al. (2021) | EduVenture | Edu Venture—an immersive 360° VR learning experience for students, serving as an ideal tool for teachers to facilitate VR learning in the classroom |
13 | Wang et al. (2021) | Not specified | – |
14 | Ebadi and Ebadijalal (2022) | Google Expeditions | See 8 |
15 | Bacca-Acosta et al. (2022) | Not specified | – |
16 | Yeh et al. (2022) | Edu Venture | See 12 |
17 | Li et al. (2022) | Edmersiv | Edmersiv—educational app featuring various objects, experiments, and games. Users begin in a museum foyer filled with educational exhibits to facilitate learning and exploration |
18 | Hoang et al. (2023a) | Google Expeditions | See 8 |
19 | Hoang et al. (2023b) | Google Expeditions | See 8 |
20 | Wu et al. (2023) | Modern Operation Room (MOR) | MOR—VR teaching tool designed to give nursing students simulated operating room experiences and surgical training, helping them prepare for qualification |
21 | Liu et al. (2023) | Edu Venture | See 12 |
22 | Bacca-Acosta et al. (2023) | Unity Software | See 9 |
23 | Feng and Ng (2023) | Unity Software | See 9 |
We noticed a pivotal shift occurred post-2016, marked by the advent of VR goggles and headsets. This could be due to many reasons. Between 2012 and 2016, virtual reality experienced a major turning point, beginning with Oculus's successful crowdfunding campaign that raised over $2 million. This event sparked widespread interest in consumer VR and led to the development of advanced headsets (Zhao et al., 2022). Following this, major tech companies like Facebook and Google entered the market, releasing their own VR devices and accelerating the technology’s growth (Zhao et al., 2022). The convergence of mobile computing and powerful gaming systems during this period made VR more accessible, immersive, and appealing to a broader audience.
Additionally, the convergence of smartphone technology and powerful gaming computers enabled the advancement of VR technology. The release of mobile VR devices like Samsung Gear VR and Oculus Go signaled the shift towards freestanding headsets, influencing the industry towards more affordable and accessible VR solutions (Lindner, 2021). Furthermore, the introduction of smartphones as a viewing device allowed VR to have a further reach and impact on vocabulary learning (Radiant et al., 2020). The VR headsets and 360-degree video content marked a progression in the use of VR in ESL/EFL vocabulary learning that demonstrates a shift from 2D/3D VR models and voice recognition devices to a more immersive, interactive, engaging, and accessible experience (Pinto et al., 2021).
Subsequent analysis reveals a trend toward standardizing certain VR platforms across multiple studies (Fig. 5). Google Expeditions, the Eduventure VR App, and the Unity software have emerged as common tools within research, indicative of growing acceptance and reliability. Moreover, a breadth of studies has also engaged alternative VR platforms such as Edmersiv and the Modern Operation Room (MOR), which not only indicates a diverse ecosystem of VR technologies being harnessed for language learning but also shows that the field is open to innovation and experimentation. The popularity of platforms such as Google Expeditions, the Eduventure VR App, and the Unity software indicates a broader recognition of the effectiveness and reliability of these platforms in facilitating vocabulary learning in ESL/EFL contexts. Most importantly, the diversity of VR platforms utilized reflects the growing potential for VR in language learning. While established platforms such as Google Expeditions, Eduventure VR App, and Unity software offer a degree of reliability and proven efficacy, less utilized platforms may provide an opportunity for further exploration of new features and functionalities that could further enhance vocabulary learning.
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 5
Frequency of VR Platform Usage
Our analysis did not reveal any associations between the types of VR applications examined in the studies and their usage in any particular country or region. This suggests that there is no significant tendency for a specific VR application to be predominantly used or favored in any particular geographic area over another.
Usage of virtual reality tools in vocabulary learning for ESL/EFL students
Table 6 below presents a collection of data extracted from the selected papers. Each entry is categorized based on the nature of the VR sessions and annotated to include the facilitating VR tools utilized, as well as a summary that encapsulates how VR technology was implemented within the learning framework. This structure is designed to offer a clear perspective on the pedagogical strategies, the technological innovations employed, and the outcomes of incorporating VR in language learning, thereby addressing the core research question of how VR has been adopted in the realm of vocabulary development for ESL/EFL learners over the past decade.
Table 6. Types and tools of VR used in the reviewed studies
Categories of VR sessions | Author/s & Year | Facilitator VR tool | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
*Role-playing scenarios | Hassani et al. (2016) | Computer | Participants practiced conversational skills by interacting with intelligent agents in virtual environments |
Chen (2020) | VR headset | Participants experienced a VR airport scenario that assisted and guided them through real-world procedures | |
Wu et al. (2023) | VR headsets and + Controllers | Participants engaged with virtual objects/characters in a simulated environment. With headsets and controllers, students interacted with surgical instruments and the non-player character doctor | |
*Interactive VR scenarios (With others) | Chen (2016a, 2016b) | Computer | Participants interacted through a VR environment operated within Second Life (SL). This environment provided dynamic opportunities for interaction and vocabulary improvement |
Ebadi and Ebadijalal (2022) | VR headsets | Participants selected renowned museums in 10 separate sessions (20 min each), giving each student four chances to present. One student from each group acted as a museum guide, while others played the role of visitors | |
York et al. (2021) | VR headsets | Participants identified differences between two dollhouses and communicated with each other using the avatars' body language and gestures | |
*Independent VR tours (individually) | Chen (2016a, 2016b) | Computer | The virtual environment was designed around game and scenario-based concepts, featuring distinct tasks for each unit |
Madini and Alshaikhi (2017) | VR Goggles + Phones | Students viewed VR videos on YouTube and were asked to pair up, discuss, and share their perspectives with the class | |
Wilang (2019) | VR headsets | Participants were instructed to listen to the speaker and follow directions provided in the 360 VR stimulus video, such as locating specific named items within the VR environment | |
Yildrim et al. (2019) | VR Goggles | Each participant watched a video using VR goggles while seated on 360° rotating chairs, with their eye movements being tracked | |
Monteiro and Ribeiro (2020) | Google Cardboard | Participants took a virtual tour of a museum in Mexico and were presented with various texts containing the targeted vocabulary | |
Chen and Hsu (2020) | VR headset | Participants utilized a gyro sensor in a smart mobile device, allowing them to physically rotate items and fully immerse themselves in the virtual content. The content is designed as dialogues that are gamified for enhanced interaction | |
Wang et al. (2021) | VR headsets | Group 1—Visual Prompt Scaffolding-Based VR (VPS-VR): Participants read texts accompanied by an explanatory prompt during the reading sessions | |
Group 2—Virtual reality (VR): Participants read texts through VR without any explanatory prompt over the reading sessions | |||
Bacca-Acosta et al. (2022) | VR standalone headsets | The dynamic IVR environment provides corrective feedback to students. Students can either walk around the room or use the teleport feature to interact with contexts related to English prepositions of place | |
Static IVR environment: Students stay seated in this IVR setting; therefore, they cannot walk/move around the room | |||
Li et al. (2022) | VR standalone headsets & controllers | Participants tackled comprehension challenges, participated in group discussions, and completed a list of tasks. They then wrote an essay based on their VR experience | |
Feng and Luan Ng (2023) | VR headsets & controllers | Participants toured a 150 m2 six-roomed virtual house, in which they could move. They used controllers to interact with virtual objects, learning the English words corresponding to each object | |
Liu et al. (2023) | VR headsets | The experimental group utilized an article-structure strategy incorporated into spherical video-based virtual reality (SVVR) and engaged with interactive content and comprehension feedback. The control group used SVVR without the article-structure strategy and interactive questions | |
Bacca-Acosta et al. (2023) | VR headsets Vs 2D environment | Participants virtually placed a book in a specific spot in an office according to instructions, utilizing one of the 11 English prepositions of place. One group used HMDs while the other group used desktops | |
*Creating VR scenarios | Chen (2014) | Computer | Participants developed a 3D interactive game incorporating digital English teaching materials. The storyboard was established, encompassing the concept, written script, flow process, character and set drawings, and storyboard frames |
Hoang et al. (2023b) | VR headsets | Participants took part in VR tours, participated in discussions, delivered presentations, and created their own VR tours | |
Yeh et al. (2022) | Not specified | Participants created VR content that highlighted the cultural significance of local sites in Taiwan | |
Hoang et al. (2023a) | VR headsets | Participants experienced various VR contexts, engaged in group discussions, presented their ideas, and created their own VR tours | |
Chen et al. (2021) | Google Cardboard | Participants utilized the EduVenture VR app to create and share 360-degree video content via mobile headsets like Google Cardboard |
Research design and methodological trends in VR-based ESL/EFL studies
Upon reviewing the methodologies used in the studies, it is evident that there is a trend towards more rigorous and comprehensive designs (Table 7). This trend can be seen by comparing earlier studies, which are often exploratory or quasi-experimental, with later studies that employed robust quasi-experimental approaches, including action research with various types of pre- and post-tests. Additionally, the sample sizes have increased over time. Aside from Chen (2014) and Chen (2016a, 2016b), we noted that earlier studies had sample sizes ranging from 9 to 20 participants, whereas recent studies involved larger sample sizes. The methods of data collection have also become more sophisticated, evolving from simple descriptive approaches within single paradigms to a combination of statistical and qualitative data. These include pre- and post-tests, various questionnaires, interviews, and even physiological measurements such as eye-tracking, as seen in Bacca-Acosta et al. (2023) and Feng and Ng (2023). This shift indicates the adoption of more advanced data analysis techniques, moving beyond basic descriptive statistics to employ sophisticated statistical methods, such as paired-sample t-tests and Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) (see Chen & Hsu, 2020; Li et al., 2022).
Table 7. Methodology used in researching VR in EFL Vocabulary Learning in Higher Education
Authors and Year | Study design | Data collection methods | Sampling Strategy | Sample Size | Data Analysis Techniques | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Chen (2014) | Quasi-experiment | Pre & post-tests | NS | 120 | Quantitative |
2 | Hassani, et al. (2016) | Experimental | A questionnaire | NS | 10 | Quantitative |
3 | Chen (2016a, 2016b) | Quasi-experiment | A pre- & post-test A questionnaire | Purposeful | 448 | Quantitative |
4 | Chen (2016a, 2016b) | Grounded theory approach and triangulated multiple qualitative data sources | Questionnaires; Semi-structured focus group interview; Text-based interview; Participant observation | Purposeful | 9 | Qualitative |
5 | Madini and Alshaikhi (2017) | Quantitative experimental | A pre- & post-test | NS | 20 | Quantitative |
6 | Yildirim et al. (2019) | Experimental (repeated measures design) | Post-tests Eye-tracking data | Purposeful | 18 | Quantitative |
7 | Wilang (2019) | Quasi-experimental | Observation sheet Questionnaires Vocabulary picture cards Individual interviews | Convenience | 11 | Quantitative & Qualitative |
8 | Monteiro and Ribeiro (2020) | Experimental | Proficiency Test Questionnaires Pre & post-Test Field Diary | Convenience | 25 | Qualitative & Quantitative |
9 | Chen (2020) | Mixed-methods approach | A questionnaire semi-structured interviews Field journal | Random | 117 | Quantitative Qualitative |
10 | Chen and Hsu (2020) | Quasi-experimental (action research) | Pre & post-Test Questionnaires | Purposeful | 274 | Quantitative |
11 | York et al. (2021) | Experimental (a counterbalanced, 3 × 3 factorial with repeated measures) | Questionnaires | Random | 30 | Quantitative & Qualitative |
12 | Chen et al. (2021) | Mixed-methods design | Report Post tests Questinnair Interviews | Random | 84 | Quantitative & Qualitative |
13 | Wang et al. (2021) | Quasi-experiment | Tests Quetionnaires Interviews | Convenience | 98 | Quantitative & Qualitative |
14 | Ebadi and Ebadijalal (2022) | Sequential explanatory mixed-methods design | Video-recorded oral performance, Questionnaires Focus group semi-structured interviews | Random | 20 | Quantitative & Qualitative |
15 | Bacca-Acosta et al. (2022) | Quasi-experiment | Pre- & post-test Eye tracking | Random | 41 | Quantitative analysis |
16 | Yeh et al. (2022) | Action research study | Questionnaires Open-ended questions | Convenience | 60 | Quantitative & Qualitative |
17 | Li et al. (2022) | Experimental | Pre- & post-test Questionnaires | Random | 36 | Quantitative |
18 | Hoang et al. (2023a) | Mixed-methods design with a quasi-experiment | Pre- & post-test Semi-structured interviews | Random | 23 | Quantitative & Qualitative |
19 | Hoang et al. (2023b) | Qualitative research | Semi-structured interviews Observation notes | Random | 24 | Qualitative |
20 | Wu et al. (2023) | Experiment | Questionnaire Semi-structured interviews | Purposeful | 10 | Quantitative Qualitative |
21 | Liu et al. (2023) | A quasi-experiment | Pre- & post-test | Random | 63 | Quantitative |
22 | Bacca-Acosta et al. (2023) | A quasi-experiment | Pre- & post-test Eye-tracking | Random | 80 | Quantitative |
23 | Feng and Ng (2023) | A quasi-experiment | Pre- & post-test Rubric | Matched pairs randomization | 144 | Quantitative |
Furthermore, researchers’ methodological awareness has increased, as demonstrated in studies like Wu et al. (2023) and Liu et al. (2023), which openly acknowledge their limitations. These limitations encompass technical issues with VR devices and challenges in generalizing the findings. Overall, such developments suggest a greater rigour and maturity within the field.
Furthermore, reviewing the methodologies used in the studies examined in this paper also illustrates how the community of practice evolves over time. Initial research aimed to establish the context for using VR in EFL vocabulary learning up until 2019, as seen in Chen (2014), Hassani et al. (2016), Chen (2016a, 2016b) and Wilang (2019). This period can be regarded as exploratory and was characterized by a less explicit awareness of limitations, a lack of rigorous statistical evaluation, issues with internet connectivity, unfamiliarity with VR devices, and small sample sizes. This period also reflects how learners were navigating new and challenging virtual environments and their attempts to overcome personal hesitation and unfamiliarity with VR tools. The subsequent period was generally marked by increased sophistication and awareness of using VR in EFL vocabulary learning. Researchers have begun to explore and seek more relevant materials and resources, as seen in Chen (2020), Chen et al. (2021), and Bacca-Acosta et al. (2022). Not only has the relevance of the resources developed, but the sophistication of the research designs has evolved to include mixed-methods design with a quasi-experiment (Hoang et al., 2023a), action research (Chen & Hsu, 2020; Yeh et al., 2022), a counterbalanced, 3 × 3 factorial with repeated measures (York et al., 2021), and a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design (Ebadi & Ebadijalal, 2022). Additionally, the tools used for data collection showed significant advancements, with researchers collecting data using eye trackers (Bacca-Acosta et al., 2022; Yildirim et al., 2019), rubrics (Feng & Ng, 2023), and video recorders (Ebadi & Ebadijalal, 2022), alongside traditional pre- and post-tests and various types of interviews with sampling techniques to include matched pairs randomization (Feng & Ng, 2023) in addition to common sampling techniques (e.g., convenience, purposeful and random). These observations demonstrate great maturity in the field and suggest that the community researching VR in EFL, particularly in vocabulary learning, is mastering the art of employing VR, with much more growth anticipated.
Influence of virtual reality EFL vocabulary learning in higher education
To address the third and fourth research questions of this review and to understand the broader implications of VR in ESL/EFL vocabulary learning, we conducted an impact analysis of the reviewed studies. This analysis aimed to identify both the positive and negative effects of VR on key learning outcomes, including vocabulary achievement, learner motivation, engagement, and confidence. While many studies reported enhanced learning experiences and improved vocabulary retention, others highlighted challenges such as cognitive overload, technical limitations, and inconsistent transferability of skills. The following summary presents a balanced view of these impacts, offering insights into the effectiveness and limitations of VR in higher education language instruction (see Table 8).
Table 8. Positive and negative impact of VR as reported by the reviewed studies
# | Authors and Year | Positive impact | Negative impact |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | Chen (2014) | Improved vocabulary retention | |
2 | Hassani et al. (2016) | Increased learner engagement | |
3 | Chen (2016a, 2016b) | Enhanced motivation | |
4 | Chen (2016a, 2016b) | Improved learning outcomes | |
5 | Madini and Alshaikhi (2017) | Boosted motivation and confidence | |
6 | Yildirim et al. (2019) | Better vocabulary recall | |
7 | Wilang (2019) | Limited transferability of vocabulary | |
8 | Monteiro and Ribeiro (2020) | Reduced anxiety, improved confidence | |
9 | Chen (2020) | Increased learner autonomy | |
10 | Chen and Hsu (2020) | Personalized learning, self-paced progress | |
11 | York et al. (2021) | Instructor readiness and integration challenges | |
12 | Chen et al. (2021) | Improved vocabulary learning | |
13 | Wang et al. (2021) | Enhanced reading comprehension and vocabulary retention | |
14 | Ebadi and Ebadijalal (2022) | Support for autonomous learning | |
15 | Bacca-Acosta et al. (2022) | Increased engagement | Cognitive overload |
16 | Yeh et al. (2022) | Improved learning motivation | |
17 | Li et al. (2022) | Enhanced vocabulary acquisition | |
18 | Hoang et al. (2023a) | Reduced anxiety, increased confidence | |
19 | Hoang et al. (2023b) | Technical issues, motion sickness | |
20 | Wu et al. (2023) | Strong learning outcomes, high engagement | |
21 | Liu et al. (2023) | Gamified VR increased motivation and participation | |
22 | Bacca-Acosta et al. (2023) | Improved learner interaction | Cognitive overload |
23 | Feng and Ng (2023) | Usability and accessibility issues |
Positive impact
The analysis of the reviewed studies revealed several consistent positive impacts of VR on ESL/EFL vocabulary learning in higher education. Most notably, VR environments enhanced learning achievement, with learners demonstrating improved vocabulary retention and comprehension (e.g., Chen, 2014; Wang et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2023). The immersive and interactive nature of VR significantly boosted learner motivation and engagement, making vocabulary practice more enjoyable and meaningful (e.g., Liu et al., 2023; Madini & Alshaikhi, 2017). Additionally, VR contributed to increased learner confidence and reduced anxiety, providing a safe space for experimentation and repeated practice without fear of judgment (e.g., Hoang et al., 2023a; Monteiro & Ribeiro, 2020). Several studies have also highlighted the role of VR in promoting autonomous learning, enabling students to learn at their own pace and receive personalized feedback (e.g., Chen & Hsu, 2020; Ebadi & Ebadijalal, 2022). Collectively, these findings highlight VR’s potential to enhance both the cognitive and affective dimensions of vocabulary learning in higher education contexts.
The consistent benefits observed across the reviewed studies—such as improved vocabulary retention, increased motivation, and reduced anxiety—can be attributed to several pedagogical and cognitive affordances of VR technology. As Bailenson (2018) and Gonzalez-Franco and Lanier (2017) explain, the immersive nature of VR creates a sense of presence and embodiment, which enhances memory encoding and recall. This may explain the improved vocabulary retention and comprehension reported in studies like Chen (2014) and Wu et al. (2023). Additionally, the interactive and gamified elements of VR environments foster intrinsic motivation and learner engagement (Jin, 2021; Lin & Wang, 2021), making vocabulary practice more enjoyable and meaningful. The safe, judgment-free space provided by VR also helps reduce learner anxiety and build confidence, as noted by Monteiro and Ribeiro (2020) and Eisenlauer and Sosa (2022). Furthermore, the ability to control pace and receive personalized feedback supports autonomous learning, aligning with findings from Ebadi and Ebadijalal (2022) and Alwafi et al. (2022). These affordances suggest that VR’s effectiveness in vocabulary learning stems not only from its technological novelty but from its alignment with key principles of cognitive and affective learning.
Negative impact and challanges
In addressing the final research question of this review, this section highlights the challenges and negative impact encountered by ESL/EFL students when using virtual reality for vocabulary learning.
Technical and qualitative challenges
Several studies have documented various technical difficulties associated with VR and its related technologies (Chen, 2016a, 2016b; Hoang et al., 2023a, 2023b; Monteiro & Ribeiro, 2020; Wu et al., 2023). Chen (2016a, 2016b) reported technical issues, and the absence of paralinguistic features led to a lack of nonverbal support. Similarly, Monteiro and Ribeiro (2020) identified technical issues and device functionality as primary challenges. Building on these findings, Wu et al. (2023) highlighted that some technical problems required the expertise of a VR specialist, making them difficult for teachers to resolve independently. Furthermore, Hoang et al., (2023a, 2023b) observed that device incompatibility issues forced students to share devices. Additionally, designing VR tours on platforms like Tour Creator and Google Poly necessitated access to desktops or laptops. A possible explanation for these difficulties could be the rapid advancement of VR technologies outpacing the development of comprehensive, user-friendly solutions and the availability of knowledgeable technical support.
Additionally, some studies highlighted technical difficulties associated with clarity, visual quality, and qualitative challenges in VR learning environments (Madini & Alshaikhi, 2017; Wilang, 2019). Wilang (2019) reported issues with the clarity of images in 360 VR videos, which led to difficulties in remembering words. This underscores the critical importance of high-quality visuals in VR educational experiences. Similarly, Madini and Alshaikhi (2017) found that social and cultural factors must be carefully considered when developing VR scenarios, as they can significantly influence the effectiveness of the learning experience. It is, therefore, essential to consider that while VR technology advances rapidly, supporting elements such as visual quality and culturally sensitive content development have yet to catch up, leading to suboptimal learning outcomes for diverse user groups.
Cost and accessibility
Yildirim et al. (2019) argue that VR headsets have become more cost-effective. Initially, VR was deemed unsuitable for educational settings due to its high cost and fragility. However, technological advancements in the 2010s made VR more affordable and popular, enabling its use in education (Yildirim et al., 2019). Furthermore, Wang et al. (2021) highlight cheaper alternatives, such as Spherical Video-Based Virtual Reality (SVVR), which is affordable, easy to implement, and offers immersive video content, allowing users to control their viewing experience. These developments have facilitated the incorporation of VR into daily teaching and learning activities.
While agreeing with Yildirim et al. (2019) and Wang et al. (2021), we argue that implementing VR technology in any educational setting causes significant financial challenges regardless of cost. It involves a high initial investment, which is required for cutting-edge VR technology and the additional resources needed to develop and maintain effective educational content.
Physical discomfort and fatigue
Several studies reported health and usability issues associated with VR technologies (Feng & Ng, 2023; Hoang et al., 2023a, 2023b; Wu et al., 2023). For instance, Monteiro and Ribeiro (2020) found that 10 out of 25 participants experienced dizziness or motion sickness. Building on this, Hoang et al., (2023a, 2023b) noted that VR applications caused dizziness and eye strain, which was particularly problematic for short-sighted students. Additional concerns reported by Wu et al. (2023) included disorientation, dizziness, fatigue, neck pain, and eyestrain, these being especially challenging for eyeglass wearers. Similarly, Feng and Ng (2023) observed dizziness and difficulties when taking notes, which impacted learning and led to increased spelling errors. A possible explanation for these widespread difficulties could be the current limitations in VR technology and design, which may not yet fully accommodate the diverse physical needs and ergonomic considerations of heterogeneous users.
Learning behavior and interaction
Some studies noted significant technical difficulties related to learning behavior and interaction in VR environments (Chen & Hsu, 2020; Hoang et al., 2023a, 2023b; Wang et al., 2021). For example, Chen and Hsu (2020) identified challenges such as test anxiety impacting game engagement, uneasiness due to uncertainty, and frustration when students were unable to solve problems. Similarly, Wang et al. (2021) reported difficulties in tracking and analyzing learners' behaviors and interactions within a VR environment. Adding to these concerns, Hoang et al., (2023a, 2023b) found that language input on VR tours hindered the progress of lower-level CEFR students. A possible explanation for these issues could be that the rapid development of VR technologies has outpaced the creation of effective tools and methods for evaluating and supporting diverse learner behaviors and interactions in these immersive environments.
Connecting findings to broader pedagogical and implementation contexts
The findings of this review reveal both alignment and tension between computational thinking (CT) and English language arts (ELA) pedagogical goals. While VR technologies support CT principles such as problem-solving, interactivity, and iterative learning, they also offer immersive environments that enhance vocabulary acquisition and contextual language use—core goals of ELA instruction. However, some studies (e.g., Wilang, 2019; York et al., 2021) suggest that the novelty and complexity of VR can sometimes shift focus away from language learning objectives, creating a misalignment between technological engagement and linguistic outcomes. This tension highlights the need for careful instructional design that balances both CT and ELA priorities.
In terms of scalability, the reviewed studies demonstrate that the successful implementation of VR in language education often depends on institutional support, access to resources, and teacher readiness. Districts aiming to replicate similar initiatives should consider phased integration, starting with pilot programs and professional development (PD) workshops. Studies such as Ebadi and Ebadijalal (2022) and Chen and Hsu (2020) emphasize the importance of teacher training in maximizing the pedagogical value of VR tools. PD programs should focus not only on technical skills but also on instructional strategies that align VR activities with curriculum goals.
The implications for PD design are clear: educators need structured support to integrate VR meaningfully into ELA instruction. This includes training on selecting appropriate VR applications, designing vocabulary tasks that leverage immersive features, and assessing learning outcomes effectively. PD should also address accessibility and inclusivity, ensuring that VR tools are adaptable to the diverse needs of learners. By aligning PD with both CT and ELA goals, institutions can foster more effective and sustainable use of VR in language education.
Conclusions and implications
As educational technology continues to evolve, incorporating virtual reality (VR) into pedagogical practices promises to transform language instruction and enhance ESL/EFL learning. This systematic review has revealed evolving trends and applications of VR technologies, demonstrating their efficacy in supporting vocabulary acquisition in higher education from 2013 to 2023. The analysis of interactive features shows that VR offers unique benefits such as immersive learning, contextualized vocabulary use, and increased learner motivation. However, challenges related to technical limitations, accessibility, and pedagogical integration remain, requiring careful consideration for broader adoption.
This review emphasizes the importance of future studies to investigate the impact of individual learner differences—such as language proficiency, learning styles, and prior exposure to technology—on the effectiveness of VR-based vocabulary learning. Longitudinal research is also necessary to evaluate the sustained impact of VR on vocabulary retention and academic performance, as well as comparative studies across various instructional settings and VR platforms.
Educators can leverage VR to create personalized, immersive learning experiences that foster deeper engagement and contextual understanding. Professional development and training programs should be designed to equip instructors with the skills needed to integrate VR effectively into language curricula, ensuring that its use is pedagogically sound and aligned with learning objectives.
Policymakers and curriculum designers should consider the inclusion of VR technologies in language programs, particularly in higher education. Investment in infrastructure, inclusive design, and accessibility solutions will be essential to ensure equitable access to VR-enhanced learning. VR’s immersive features—such as realistic scenarios, cultural exposure, real-time feedback, and adaptability—can enhance engagement, improve learning outcomes, and support inclusive education.
The findings of this review emphasize the capabilities and potential of VR in vocabulary learning among ESL/EFL university students, offering a foundation for future research and practical advancements in this rapidly evolving field.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the College of Science and Health Professions (COSHP) at King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences and the King Abdullah International Medical Research Center (KAIMRC) for their unwavering support throughout this project. Additionally, special thanks to Dr. Sabria Jawhar for her encouragement and to Dr. Eman Alnafjan, whose guidance and support were instrumental in the development of this review. Additionally, we extend our appreciation to Mr. Yusuf Alhadram for his assistance in accessing the necessary articles, which greatly facilitated our research. We are also deeply thankful to the Systematic Review Group in COSHIP for their contributions and collaboration.
Author contributions
Dr. Sajjadllah led the research and contributed significantly to the conceptualization, methodology design, formal analysis, supervision, project administration, and the writing of both the original draft and subsequent revisions. Faten Alzaid supported the study through data collection, literature review, assistance with analysis, visualization, and contributed to the writing and editing of the manuscript.
Funding
No funding has been provided for this manuscript.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
No ethical approval was required as the study involved secondary data analysis.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest related to this study. No financial, personal, or professional affiliations influenced the research, analysis, or conclusions presented in this systematic review.
Abbreviations
English as a Foreign Language
English as a Second Language
Virtual Reality
Head-mounted display
Higher Education
Augmented reality
VR-assisted language learning
English Language Art
Computational thinking
Professional development
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
References indicated with an asterisk (*) represent studies included in the review.
Akyıldız, Y. The impact of virtual reality on vocabulary learning and cognitive efficiency. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning; 2025; 8,
Al-Ansi, AM; Jaboob, M; Garad, A; Al-Ansi, A. Analyzing augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) recent development in education. Social Sciences & Humanities Open; 2023; 8,
Albayrak, M. S., Chen, J., & Williams, P. J. (2023). A quantitative research on gamifying vocabulary acquisition and retention in virtual reality. Teaching English with Technology, 23(1).
Alfadil, M. Effectiveness of virtual reality game in foreign language vocabulary acquisition. Computers & Education; 2020; 153, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103893] 103893.
Alfadil, M. Effectiveness of virtual reality game in foreign language vocabulary acquisition. Computers & Education; 2020; 153, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103893] 103893.
Alfalah, SF; Falah, JF; Muhaidat, N; Elfalah, M; Falah, O. Investigating learners' attitudes toward virtual reality learning environments in embryology education. Modern Applied Science; 2019; 13,
Al-Gamdi, MA. Virtual reality in TEFL context: Instructors’ perspectives in a Saudi University. English Language and Literature Studies; 2019; 9,
Alizadeh, M. Virtual reality in the language classroom: Theory and practice. Call-Ej; 2019; 20,
Alwafi, GA; Almalki, S; Alrougi, M; Meccawy, M; Meccawy, Z. A social virtual reality mobile application for learning and practicing English. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies; 2022; 16,
*Bacca-Acosta, J., Tejada, J., Fabregat, R., Kinshuk, & Guevara, J. (2022). Scaffolding in immersive virtual reality environments for learning English: an eye tracking study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1–24.
Bacca-Acosta, J; Tejada, J; Lampropoulos, G; Avila, C. A comparative eye-tracking study between a virtual reality system and a desktop environment for learning the prepositions of place in English. CALICO Journal; 2023; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1558/cj.22803]
Bailenson, J. Experience on demand: What virtual reality is, how it works, and what it can do; 2018; W.W. Norton & Company:
Chen, B; Wang, Y; Wang, L. The effects of virtual reality-assisted language learning: A meta-analysis. Sustainability; 2022; 14,
Chen, CH; Hung, HT; Yeh, HC. Virtual reality in problem-based learning contexts: Effects on the problem-solving performance, vocabulary acquisition and motivation of English language learners. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning; 2021; 37,
Chen, C; Yuan, Y. Effectiveness of virtual reality on Chinese as a second language vocabulary learning: Perceptions from international students. Computer Assisted Language Learning; 2025; 38,
Chen, JC. The crossroads of English language learners, task-based instruction, and 3D multi-user virtual learning in Second Life. Computers & Education; 2016; 102, pp. 152-171. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.08.004]
Chen, YL. Virtual reality software usage in an EFL scenario: An Empirical study. Journal of Software; 2014; 9,
Chen, YL. The effects of virtual reality learning environment on student cognitive and linguistic development. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher; 2016; 25, pp. 637-646. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0293-2]
*Chen, Y. L. (2020). Students’ attitude toward learning and practicing English in a VR environment. In Innovative Technologies and Learning: Third International Conference, ICITL 2020, Porto, Portugal, November 23–25, 2020, Proceedings 3 (pp. 128–136). Springer International Publishing.
Chen, YL; Hsu, CC. Self-regulated mobile game-based English learning in a virtual reality environment. Computers & Education; 2020; 154, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103910] 103910.
Dhimolea, TK; Kaplan-Rakowski, R; Lin, L. A systematic review of research on high-immersion virtual reality for language learning. TechTrends; 2022; 66,
Ebadi, S; Ebadijalal, M. The effect of Google Expeditions virtual reality on EFL learners’ willingness to communicate and oral proficiency. Computer Assisted Language Learning; 2022; 35,
Eisenlauer, V; Sosa, D. Pedagogic meaning-making in spherical video-based virtual reality–A case study from the EFL classroom. Designs for Learning; 2022; 14,
Feng, B; Ng, LL. Facilitating writing performance of EFL learners via virtual reality: Immersion, presence, embodiment. Frontiers in Psychology; 2023; 14, 1134242. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1134242]
Freina, L., & Ott, M. (2015). A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: State of the art and perspectives. In Proceedings of the 11th International Scientific Conference "eLearning and Software for Education" (eLSE), 1, (pp. 133–141). https://doi.org/10.12753/2066-026X-15-020
Fuhrman, O; Eckerling, A; Friedmann, N; Tarrasch, R; Raz, G. The moving learner: Object manipulation in virtual reality improves vocabulary learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning; 2021; 37,
Galloway, N; Numajiri, T; Rees, N. The ‘internationalization’, or ‘Englishisation’, of higher education in East Asia. Higher Education; 2020; 80,
Godwin-Jones, R. Augmented reality and language learning: From annotated vocabulary to place-based mobile games. Language Learning & Technology; 2016; 20,
Gonzalez-Franco, M; Lanier, J. Model of illusions and virtual reality. Frontiers in Psychology; 2017; 8, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01125] 273943.
Hamid, MO; Nguyen, HTM. Globalization, English language policy, and teacher agency: Focus on Asia. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives; 2016; 15,
Haoming, L; Wei, W. A systematic review on vocabulary learning in AR and VR gamification context. Computers & Education: X Reality; 2024; 4, 100057.
Hassani, K; Nahvi, A; Ahmadi, A. Design and implementation of an intelligent virtual environment for improving speaking and listening skills. Interactive Learning Environments; 2016; 24,
Hoang, DTN; Johnson, NF; McAlinden, M. Exploring the potential of VR in enhancing authentic learning for EFL tertiary students in Vietnam. Teaching English with Technology; 2023; 23,
Hoang, DTN; McAlinden, M; Johnson, NF. Extending a learning ecology with virtual reality mobile technology: Oral proficiency outcomes and students’ perceptions. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching; 2023; 17,
Hua, C; Wang, J. Virtual reality-assisted language learning: A follow-up review (2018–2022). Frontiers in Psychology; 2023; 14, 1153642. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1153642]
Huang, X; Zou, D; Cheng, G; Xie, H. A systematic review of AR and VR enhanced language learning. Sustainability; 2021; 13,
Jerald, J. The VR book: Human-centered design for virtual reality; 2016; Morgan & Claypool Publishers:
Jin, S. The effects of digital virtual reality game-based language learning on English language learners’ development of vocabulary and cultural knowledge and affective attitudes. Journal of English Teaching through Movies and Media; 2021; 22,
Kaplan-Rakowski1, R., & Gruber, A. (2022). High-immersion virtual reality. Intelligent CALL, granular systems and learner data: short papers from EUROCALL 2022, 208.
Lai, KWK; Chen, HJH. A comparative study on the effects of a VR and PC visual novel game on vocabulary learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning; 2023; 36,
Lee, L. H, Braud, T., Zhou, P., Wang, L., Xu, D., Lin, Z., Kumar, A., Bermejo, C., & Hui, P. (2022). All one needs to know about metaverse: A complete survey on technological singularity, virtual ecosystem, and research agenda. arXiv preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.05352. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2110.05352.
Lee, SM; Park, M. Reconceptualization of the context in language learning with a location-based AR app. Computer Assisted Language Learning; 2020; 33,
Legault, J; Zhao, J; Chi, YA; Chen, W; Klippel, A; Li, P. Immersive virtual reality as an effective tool for second language vocabulary learning. Languages; 2019; 4,
Li, Y; Ying, S; Chen, Q; Guan, J. An experiential learning-based virtual reality approach to foster students’ vocabulary acquisition and learning engagement in English for geography. Sustainability; 2022; 14,
Lin, YJ; Wang, HC. Using virtual reality to facilitate learners’ creative self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation in an EFL classroom. Education and Information Technologies; 2021; 26,
Lindner, P. Better, virtually: The past, present, and future of virtual reality cognitive behavior therapy. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy; 2021; 14,
*Liu, C. C., Guo, Y., Hwang, G. J., Tu, Y. F., & Wang, Z. (2023). Effects of an article-structure strategy-based spherical video-based virtual reality approach on EFL learners’ English reading comprehension and learning conceptions. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–18.
Madini, AA; Alshaikhi, D. Virtual reality for teaching ESP vocabulary: A myth or a possibility. International Journal of English Language Education; 2017; 5,
Makransky, G; Lilleholt, L. A structural equation modeling investigation of the emotional value of immersive virtual reality in education. Educational Technology Research and Development; 2018; 66,
Monteiro, AMV; Ribeiro, PNDS. Virtual reality in English vocabulary teaching: An exploratory study on affect in the use of technology. Trabalhos Em Linguística Aplicada; 2020; 59, pp. 1310-1338. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/01031813756931620200716]
Nicolaidou, I; Pissas, P; Boglou, D. Comparing immersive virtual reality to mobile applications in foreign language learning in higher education: A quasi-experiment. Interactive Learning Environments; 2023; 31,
Page, MJ; McKenzie, JE; Bossuyt, PM; Boutron, I; Hoffmann, TC; Mulrow, CD; Moher, D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ; 2021; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71]
Pandey, N; Pal, A. Impact of digital surge during Covid-19 pandemic: A viewpoint on research and practice. International Journal of Information Management; 2020; 55, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102171] 102171.
Parmaxi, A. Virtual reality in language learning: A systematic review and implications for research and practice. Interactive Learning Environments; 2023; 31,
Parmaxi, A; Demetriou, AA. Augmented reality in language learning: A state-of-the-art review of 2014–2019. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning; 2020; 36,
Pataquiva, FDPF; Klimova, B. A systematic review of virtual reality in the acquisition of second language. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning; 2022; 17,
Peixoto, B; Pinto, R; Melo, M; Cabral, L; Bessa, M. Immersive virtual reality for foreign language education: A PRISMA systematic review. IEEE Access; 2021; 9, pp. 48952-48962. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3068858]
Radianti, J; Majchrzak, TA; Fromm, J; Wohlgenannt, I. A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education; 2020; 147, 103778. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778]
Pellas, N; Mystakidis, S; Kazanidis, I. Immersive virtual reality in K-12 and higher education: A systematic review of the last decade scientific literature. Virtual Reality; 2021; 25,
Pinto, RD; Peixoto, B; Melo, M; Cabral, L; Bessa, M. Foreign language learning gamification using virtual reality—a systematic review of empirical research. Education Sciences; 2021; 11,
Qiu, XY; Chiu, CK; Zhao, LL; Sun, CF; Chen, SJ. Trends in VR/AR technology-supporting language learning from 2008 to 2019: A research perspective. Interactive Learning Environments; 2023; 31,
Shi, J; Sitthiworachart, J; Hong, JC. Supporting project-based learning for students’ oral English skill and engagement with immersive virtual reality. Education and Information Technologies; 2024; 29,
Soleimani, H; Jalilifar, A; Rouhi, A; Rahmanian, M. Augmented reality and virtual reality scaffoldings in improving the abstract genre structure in a collaborative learning environment: A CALL study. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning; 2019; 11,
Tai, TY; Chen, HHJ; Todd, G. The impact of a virtual reality app on adolescent EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning; 2022; 35,
Tseng, WT; Liou, HJ; Chu, HC. Vocabulary learning in virtual environments: Learner autonomy and collaboration. System; 2020; 88, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102190] 102190.
Tseng, WT; Liou, HJ; Chu, HC. Vocabulary learning in virtual environments: Learner autonomy and collaboration. System; 2020; 88, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102190] 102190.
Vázquez, C., Xia, L., Aikawa, T., & Maes, P. (2018, July). Words in motion: Kinesthetic language learning in virtual reality. In 2018 IEEE 18th International Conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT) (pp. 272–276). IEEE.
Vonkova, H; Jones, J; Moore, A; Altinkalp, I; Selcuk, H. A review of recent research in EFL motivation: Research trends, emerging methodologies, and diversity of researched populations. System; 2021; 103, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102622] 102622.
Wang, Z; Guo, Y; Wang, Y; Tu, YF; Liu, C. Technological solutions for sustainable development: Effects of a visual prompt scaffolding-based virtual reality approach on EFL learners’ reading comprehension, learning attitude, motivation, and anxiety. Sustainability; 2021; 13,
*Wilang, J. D. (2019). Virtual reality for active English learning in the university context. Neo-Simulation and Gaming Toward Active Learning, 293–301.
Wilang, J. D., & Soermphongsuwat, A. (2018). Virtual Reality for Undergraduate English Language Learners: A Formative Study. Online Submission.
Wu, JG; Miller, L; Huang, Q; Wang, M. Learning with immersive virtual reality: An exploratory study of Chinese college nursing students. RELC Journal; 2023; 54,
Xie, Y; Chen, Y; Ryder, LH. Effects of using mobile-based virtual reality on Chinese L2 students’ oral proficiency. Computer Assisted Language Learning; 2021; 34,
Yeh, HC; Tseng, SS; Heng, L. Enhancing EFL students’ intracultural learning through virtual reality. Interactive Learning Environments; 2022; 30,
Yildirim, G; Yildirim, S; Dolgunsoz, E. The effect of VR and traditional videos on learner retention and decision making. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues; 2019; 11,
York, J; Shibata, K; Tokutake, H; Nakayama, H. Effect of SCMC on foreign language anxiety and learning experience: A comparison of voice, video, and VR-based oral interaction. ReCALL; 2021; 33,
Zeng, Y; Kuo, L-J; Chen, L; Lin, J-A; Shen, H. Vocabulary instruction for English learners: A systematic review connecting theories, research, and practices. Education Sciences; 2025; 15,
Zhao, Y; Zhang, Y; Wang, L. How virtual reality technology has changed our lives. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health; 2022; 19,
Zheng, C; Yu, M; Guo, Z; Liu, H; Gao, M; Chai, C. Review of the application of virtual reality in language education from 2010 to 2020. Journal of China Computer-Assisted Language Learning; 2022; 2,
© The Author(s) 2025. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.